(RJELAL) Research Journal of English Language and Literature Vol.3.Issue 4.2015 A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal (Oct-Dec) http://www.rjelal.com
RESEARCH ARTICLE
KANNADA VERSUS SANSKRIT: HEGEMONY, POWER AND SUBJUGATION
Dr. METI MALLIKARJUN Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics Sahyadri Arts College, Kuvempu University, Shimoga
ABSTRACT This paper explores the sociolinguistic struggles and conflicts which have been taken place in the context between Kannada and Sanskrit. As a result, the dichotomy of the enlightened Sanskrit and unenlightened Kannada is emerged among Sanskrit oriented scholars and philologists. This process of creating the asymmetrical relationship that exists between Sanskrit and Kannada throughout the formation of the Kannada intellectual world. This constructed dichotomy impacted on Kannada world, in such a way, without the intellectual resource of Sanskrit the development of the Kannada intellectual world is quite impossible. Which affirms Sanskrit is inevitable for Kannada in every respect of its sociocultural and philosophical formations. This is a very simple contention, due to this; Kannada has been suffering from the inferiority both in the contexts of cultural and philosophical developments. In spite of the contributions of Prakrit and Pali languages towards Indian cultural history, the Indian cultural past is directly connected to, by and large, limited to the aspects of Sanskrit culture and philosophy alone. Sanskrit language per se could have not done any domination, subjugation etc. on any of the Indian languages. But its power relations with religion and caste systems are mainly responsible for its domination on other Indian languages and cultures. Due to this sociolinguistic hegemonic structure, Sanskrit has become a language of domination, subjugation, ideology and power. This Sanskrit centric tradition created its own notion of poetics, grammar, language studies and cultural understandings. These particular thought processes reinforce the discourses of caste and religion hierarchies have entered into the mainstream Kannada intellectual world. The present paper attempts to organize all of these different threads into a coherent picture by focusing on native distinctive sociocultural and epistemic patterns of Kannada culture and intellectual world. It means, this paper affirms the need to revisit the interconnections between Kannada and Sanskrit languages.
©KY PUBLICATIONS
I. The discussions between Sanskrit and INTRODUCTION Kannada are not linear, plain and unidirectional. But "The history of humanity is not only a history of they are subtle and complex both in terms of socio-economic activity. It is also a history of structures and functions. However, this paper does semiotic activity". [M.A.K Halliday:2003 PP 210] not propose to resolve these complex and subtle realities rather, to explicate the designs of linguistic 580 Dr. METI MALLIKARJUN
(RJELAL) Research Journal of English Language and Literature Vol.3.Issue 4.2015 A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal (Oct-Dec) http://www.rjelal.com
hegemony and subjugation at one hand. At the marches to the tune of universally validated other hand, it tackles the changing processes of standards and prescriptions. This dual debate is by power relations that have been associated with no means over, and is still at the center of much Sanskrit and Kannada. Colonial mindset and Vedic international controversy, not least over the role of implications privileged Sanskrit and English at the universities in fostering, preserving and advancing expense of modern Indian languages. And they also particular kinds of knowledge” (Weiler 2006, 2009, created circuits in the relationship between Kannada pp 08). It may be noted that Kannada was not and Sanskrit. unable to evolve epistemologies rather knowledge In all language related debates the issue of systems over through the lives of its communities. Sanskrit has been a site of controversy in When Sanskrit came into contact with Kannada, as a contemporary situation of India. And a major source result, legitimization of epistemologies was of contention regarding issues of identity and problematic and crucial. Because Sanskrit was cultural authenticity is also connected to Sanskrit always referred to as language of literature, alone. At the one hand, this line of argument cannot aesthetics and many other knowledge systems, be denied, as far as the hegemonic condition of whereas, Kannada was considered lack of all these Sanskrit over the native languages of India. No epistemological realities. However, Sanskrit was doubt about it, I will definitely subscribe with this regarded as resource of all sorts of knowledge argument. At the same time, I do contend it, systems such as religion, philosophy and logic. It because Sanskrit is merely the responsible does not mean that Kannada has not responded to parameter for the present linguistic conditions of this potential threat by employing a resistance India should also be taken into consideration. mechanism. Kannada literary history provides many However, this paper is trying to highlight that how examples to prove the way in which it poses major can Sanskrit be a major source for the problems that challenges to Sanskrit in the contexts of literature have been occurred to the native languages of India and aesthetics. This controversy over the national in general, and Kannada in specific. and international politics of knowledge is very The relation between Kannada and Sanskrit evident and has become a systematic critical inquiry is very ancient. It is not possible to discuss that all in the present discourses politics of knowledge. The changes, development, negotiations have been in 12th century Vachanakars of Kannada composed the given relationship. Nevertheless, some many Vachanas [verses] refusing the Vedic important debates can be floated here. hegemony and advocating a rational form of Bhakti The Politics of Knowledge: Kannada/Sanskrit allowing no middleman in the way of reaching the It seems to be very fascinating to talk about truth. This tradition prevailed throughout the the politics of knowledge in the context of literary history of Kannada right from Pampa unto Karnataka. At the same time, it appears to be a the last. problem, because “the debate about the politics of Sanskrit centric fierce ideological positions knowledge bears, as we have seen, a remarkable imposed on Kannada were /are justified and resemblance to recent debates about the notion appreciated through the ages until the twenty first and practice of development. Much of this latter century. Kannada poets-writer offer interesting debate focuses on the difference between insights into understanding the differences between “development from below” and “development from Kannada and Sanskrit based knowledge systems. above”, or between more localized and more Kannada and Sanskrit were never shown as equals globalized conceptions and standards of rather created dichotomies like superior [Sanskrit] development. In much the same way, the debate and inferior [Kannada] languages. Over a period of about knowledge is characterized by a similarly time, these dichotomies have converted into social polarized tension between knowledge that is more realities. Obviously these social realities have grounded in local and regional traditions and accepted by various social groups of Karnataka in knowledge cultures, and knowledge that rather terms of patronized understanding. This kind of
581 Dr. METI MALLIKARJUN
(RJELAL) Research Journal of English Language and Literature Vol.3.Issue 4.2015 A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal (Oct-Dec) http://www.rjelal.com
make-believe has become a strategy for all about what causes for language attrition. As it is dominant languages in general and Sanskrit in discussed above, there are many reasons for particular. As a result, this particular perception language shift and language death. Most studies of causes to establish cultural faith among the speakers language shift have looked at a community’s of a given language. These arguments delineate that transition to the new language. But, in the case of the way in which hegemonic structures emerge in Indian context, dealing with language endangerment any given speech communities across the globe. But, is a problematic one. It is very subtle and complex hegemonic structures may be perceived in different phenomenon. It can’t be analyzed based on western ways according to the communities’ perceptions. modals alone. However, it can be argued differently. Many a time, it is realized that this is perhaps state The language of Cosmopolis i.e. Sanskrit [Sheldon sponsored hegemony. However, the available Pollock] plays a very important role in India in the historical records make it apparent that the politics process of language shift/loss. We have always been of knowledge is always from above. This reaffirms aware of the ambience of many languages in our stereotype that epistemology is created from above environment. Many languages are alive in our not evolved from below. Only the language that is environment and we have always perhaps switched being spoken in a community, such languages can from one language into another unconsciously always evolve knowledge and epistemological [Ananthamurthy. U. R 2009]. The 'ecologist' paradigms in a given communities. perspective – is a useful focus for linguists who call Cultural theorists have already discussed for measures to reverse this trend of language shift. the ways in which epistemological discourses If we value biological diversity and strive to protect function as a medium for social voices. That is, that it, surely it is equally important to take moral knowledge discourse is the means by which notions responsibility for the conservation and development of caste, religion and gender are structured and of linguistic diversity. reproduced within society. It is necessary to “The status of Sanskrit is an instance of this reestablish epistemological discourses of Kannada – for close to a thousand years, this prestigious from below to underscore and distinguish between language was the chief vehicle of the (exclusionary Sanskrit driven knowledge systems and knowledge and undemocratic) transmission of knowledge; systems evolved from/within Kannada communities. however, today it is this language, rather than the The issues raised here are of such scope that they less prestigious Prakrits, that is dead. As Sanskrit- are the relevant discourses of native perspectives speaking ruling classes could only capture the public which evolved from below. “The discourses of domain, the centuries of its dominance had no education are also analyzed for their power to permanently crippling effect on the less prestigious reproduce dominant/dominated relations external Indo-Aryan, Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian languages to the discourse but which penetrate the social that flourished alongside it” *Ayesha Kidwai 2008]. relations, media of transmission, and evaluation of This Sanskrit is still alive implicitly spreading across pedagogic discourse. It is often considered that the India into the languages and cultures. So Sanskrit did voice of the working class is the absent voice of not die. It grew, it developed and it gradually split pedagogic discourse, but we shall argue here that into Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati, and the other Indo- what is absent from pedagogic discourse is its own Aryan languages, to some extent, Dravidian voice” (Bernstein, 1990, p. 65). languages too, and it is still with us under those The death of Sanskrit: A continuation of guises. There's something a bit odd about lamenting sociolinguistic hegemony the death of Sanskrit language when it has in fact From a global perspective, the trend is the taken off like this. Given the existence of modern same, many smaller languages are dying out due to Indo-Aryan, why be upset that Indians don't speak the spread of a few world languages such as English, Sanskrit? Speaking Indo-Aryan pays homage to their French, Chinese, etc. [Romaine 1989: 39] There are Hindu-Vedic heritage, without requiring them to many pitfalls in trying to generalize on a global scale have frozen their culture as it was in one place and
582 Dr. METI MALLIKARJUN
(RJELAL) Research Journal of English Language and Literature Vol.3.Issue 4.2015 A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal (Oct-Dec) http://www.rjelal.com
time. Thus, language shift involves bilingualism important in understanding the multiplicity of [often with Diglossia] as a stage on the way to language practice. “This concept is inspired by the monolingualism in a new language. E.g. Hindi has work of Bakhtin [1981] on the hybridity of the got several dialects, Bhojpuri, Maithili, Awadhi so on dialogue of languages, by Anzaldu’a *1987+ on the so forth. The fact is, these varieties of Hindi have hybridity of being the ‘borderlands’ and by Bhabha never been used in the domains like education, [1994] on the hybridity of the postcoloniality” administration, mass-media, literature [there may *Ofelia Garci’a 2009:33+. As in views of Mohanty, “it be some exceptions] and other public domains. The is precisely this hybridity of language practices that Sanskritized Hindi i.e. Khariboli took over their place. is responsible for the maintenance of the many This new avatar of Sanskrit is the revitalization of old languages of the Indian subcontinent” *2009+. This Sanskrit. It also rejects the claim that Sanskrit is the fluidity in multilingual interaction demonstrates that dead language. Standardization is nothing but different cultures have different ideas about the Sanskritization of the Indian languages, it is not a integrity of their own group in relation to outsiders. new practice, and it has been there throughout the If speakers of minority language manage to find an history i.e. sanskritizing the nation. In my opinion, ecological niche in the majority community which is when Mahatma Gandhiji suggested, making conducive to language maintenance, they may have Hindustani as an official link language, instead of a better chance of survival. Hindi, there was a lot of resistance to it. Hindustani In many [minority] languages, there are is a combination of Hindi and Urdu, in which Sanskrit competing pressures towards (re) vernacularization had no place. It would have been a definite move to and (re) standardization, which have their origin in dehegemonizing the Sanskrit. the competition between the school and home Sanskrit established a clear-cut dichotomy varieties. There has always been tension between among Indian languages like ‘Marga’ *The world of standard dialect and other regional/caste dialects. Sanskrit+ and ‘Deshi’ *Indigenous Languages+. This The standardization and modernization, these two can be dealt with reference to Kannada. tendencies which are greatly affected indigenous Unfortunately these dichotomies are used as the languages in terms of their structural and functional qualifying characteristics of a standardized variety of loss. Bernadett Biro and Katalin Sipocz, are languages, which results in the creation of identifying language shift in two types of linguistic vernaculars [i.e. Native Languages] and Cosmopolis processes such as; functional loss and structural loss. [i.e. Sanskrit]. Ananthamurthy. U. R [2009] describes Language shift can involve loss of function as well as it in an optimistic way, Vernacular has always had its structural loss; the former means a decrease in the advantage and use despite the power of the domains of language use, later refers to changes in language of Cosmopolis – Sanskrit in the past and the structure of the language occurring in the English in our times. It is very evident that, it is a process of language shift. Due to the linguistic kind of prevailing sociolinguistic hegemony on hegemony and cultural dominance of Sanskrit on Kannada language and culture. It can’t be Indian languages, all our indigenous languages are considered as an advantage. suffering from both functional loss and structural There has been a strong resistance loss. The attitudes of Sanskrit towards the other throughout the history of Kannada language and Indian majority/minority languages can also play a culture in order to dehegemonizing Sanskrit. As a decisive role in language shift. As far as functional result, the sociolinguistic hybridity has been language shift is concerned, a necessary condition developed by our various poets through their works, for the survival of the indigenous languages would for example, great Kannada poets like Pampa, be the decrease of their functions. As far as the Andayya, Nayashena, Kumaravyasa and structural side of language shift is concerned, we Vachanakaras [mystic poets], by combining, marga can only sketch tendencies based on data provided and deshi, is also a kind of resistance to the by some case studies [e.g. B P Pandit, Sourashtrasi in Sanskritized Kannada. The concept of ‘hybridity’ is Tamilanadu, D N S Bhat’s on Kannada+.
583 Dr. METI MALLIKARJUN
(RJELAL) Research Journal of English Language and Literature Vol.3.Issue 4.2015 A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal (Oct-Dec) http://www.rjelal.com
As if, the provincial languages are life' (p. 84).” These views signify the linguistic conspiring against the India unity [U N Shing 1992], chauvinism and fanatical attitudes towards Sanskrit Suniti Kumar Chatterji [1943] made a statement and its religion. In my opinion, they are merely such as, “we feel that we ought to have a common slogans and emotional bursts. It is quite true; they language for the whole of India as symbol of are also conspiring to establish the hegemony of common Indian Nationality”. It is also of the opinion, Sanskrit with the sanction of India constitution. Even very clearly felt by the language planning otherwise, the continuity of Sanskrit is spread over commission in a 1957, it was discussed by Sumathi across the other Indian languages and cultures in Ramaswamy *2007+ in her paper, “It is clear, terms linguistic structure, functional usages and however, from the report submitted by the imbibed in cultural practices. This is to be Commission a year later on November 1957, that it considered a greater damage to all the indigenous saw its task as being more than just pedagogical, for languages of the Indian subcontinent. at stake was the very survival of the emerging Standardization, Modernization and Diglossia: the nation. The Commission was fiercely anxious about status of linguistic diversity 'the growing fissiparous tendencies and linguistic Tribal languages and other minority parochialism which are jeopardizing the political languages do not institutionally support for their unity of the country and are rocking the very communicative functions. And also, they have no foundations of our freedom'.' A decade of linguistic written literary tradition and no access to jealousy and bitterness had marred the joys of technology and science. In any of these domains, independence; there had been much squabbling equal potential and access does not extend to them. within the nation over state boundaries and Language revitalization and maintenance are and territories; and Hindi, the proposed official language have always been political actioned. Because, of India, had been found unacceptable by large Language policies are always discriminatory, numbers of its people. Everywhere, 'regionalism' favoring to some privileged class/communities. It is and 'linguism' were on the rise. The Commission's quite true that constitutional support and rights are solution to these problems was clear-cut: to put extended to them in order to maintain their Indians on a good and steady diet of Sanskrit by languages. Practically, they are not in favor of making its study compulsory in schools, and by minority languages. The possibility of recasting the instituting it as the official language of the nation. communities’ interests and perspectives is never Sanskrit was ideally suited for this role, for it was the taken into consideration in order to achieve their 'Supreme Unifier' (p. 201) and the 'Great Unifying aspirations. “The processes at work in Force' (p. 81). 'The Indian people and the Indian standardization and hierarchies of styles and genres civilization were born ... in the lap of Sanskrit' (p. also give rise to what Bourdieu calls legitimization 85). It is 'in our blood' (p. 81). It is 'the breath of our and authorization. Both these turn on how language nostrils and the light of our eyes' (p. 87). Mixing its is socially evaluated. Legitimacy is accorded to metaphors, the Commission also variously described selected ways of speaking or writing in that they are Sanskrit as 'the bedrock' of Indian existence, the recognized by other producers, by the dominant 'main thread which runs through the entire fabric of classes and by mass audiences” *Bourdieu 1993, the cultural life of an Indian' (p. 102), and the anchor 331; Garnham 1993]. Differences in social and that keeps the youth of India from losing their economic position tend to be reproduced in unequal 'cultural moorings' (p. 51). 'If the binding force of knowledge of legitimate language, which in turn Sanskrit [is] taken away, the people of India would reinforces constraints an access to power. However, cease to feel that they were part of a single culture Censorship, authorization, and the reinforcement of and a single nation' (p. 70). So, by restoring Sanskrit the dominant languages are all traceable to the back to its citizens, the nation, too, would be pervasive effects of power [Gal & Irvine 1997, Lind restored, and its troubled waters calmed. In storm 1992]. Sanskrit, it was declared, brings a 'symphony to our
584 Dr. METI MALLIKARJUN
(RJELAL) Research Journal of English Language and Literature Vol.3.Issue 4.2015 A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal (Oct-Dec) http://www.rjelal.com
Standardization and modernization are a just a linguistic reality, it is a sociolinguistic attitude. politicized discourse. “Standardization of languages Primary speech varieties with localized or restricting can be regarded as a legitimizing activity expanding domains as ‘Low’ *i.e. colloquial Kannada] and its institutional order through a ‘programmed superposed varieties enjoying access wider or course’ in socialization” *Berger and Luckmann, enlarging domains as ‘High’ *i.e. Standard 1966, quoted by U N Singh 1992].According to Kannada]has led many investigators to attribute ad Fishman *1974+, “the social context of language hoc values to diverse codes available in a modernization is most commonly discussed in terms community. Such studies focusing on language of (a) the growing identification with the standard attitudes generally rate primary speech as version of the national language on the part of the conceptually 'deficient* and sociologically as general public, (b) the increased accessibility of all 'deprived'. This raises certain issues of fundamental varieties within the speech community, (c) the more nature, such as how does language structure reality. rapid diffusion of linguistic innovations and status How far do the differences in speech behavior markers, resulting in repertoire continuity rather reflect differences in adequacy as opposed to than discontinuity across classes”. This linguistic acceptable variation! In what manner does the 'high inequality leads to the mismatch between home and brow' values of speech - uniformity, precision, school languages. This tendency reinforces to elegance, purity of form, allegiance to literary neglect the mother tongues of the tribe and tradition, elaboration of language through coining of minorities as well. As a consequence, linguistic new terms - actually meet with the demands of assimilation takes place, in turn; this forces the adequacy and effectiveness in everyday life tribal/ minority children into subtractive language communication in a society? (Khubchandani 1981). learning in a form of submersion education in the The relationship between Kannada-Sanskrit dominant language. Institutions like education must and Kannada-English is also a Diglossic situation. The promote mother tongue education in the former is dealing with standardization whereas later multilingual situation. one is dealing with modernization. The hegemony of Fishman [1971] divides all the multilingual both Sanskrit and English is imposed on Kannada. As developing nations into three clusters: nations with a consequence, Kannada has to struggle with both several Great Traditions, nations with one Great Sanskrit and English in order to retain its structural Tradition and nations with none [Quoted by Dua. and functional usages. In the formalized H.R: Hegemony of English]. Sanskrit took-over every communication, and in the domains like literature, tradition into its account, considering that there is criticism and other discursive writings Standard only one great tradition in India [i.e. Sanskrit]. As a Kannada [i.e. Sanskritized Kannada] is preferred. On result, Sanskrit is considered the only language of the other hand, English is preferred in the domains knowledge, philosophy, literature, great tradition like Science, Technology and Law. The similar and resource of vocabulary. Due to its monistic situation can find in Hindi, which interface with attitude, it imposed its monistic realities on all other Sanskrit alone, “those bilingual speakers belonging indigenous languages. As a consequence, linguistic to the North-Central region (characterized as the homogeneity was developed instead of Fluid Zone, cf. Khubchandani 1 972a 1978) who sociolinguistic heterogeneity. It is another way of retain their regional or caste dialects either of leveling the diversities and nullifying them in the Western Hindi or of altogether different languages domains of socio-cultural milieus. The knowledge of the region (such as Pahari, Lahnda, Panjabi, systems and intellectual diversity were also Rajasthani, Awadhi, Chhatisgarhi, Bihari) for integrated into Sanskrit tradition. informal communication within their speech group, Characterizing linguistic codes in terms of but prefer to use Khariboli (standard Hindi) for ‘High’ and ‘Low’ is another way of differentiating formalized communication. In this diglossia sociolinguistic and cultural hierarchy. This situation, these speakers think of Khariboli as having dichotomy is linguistically called as Diglossia. It is not a more prestigious role than their native speech,
585 Dr. METI MALLIKARJUN
(RJELAL) Research Journal of English Language and Literature Vol.3.Issue 4.2015 A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal (Oct-Dec) http://www.rjelal.com
which has a casual use. They regard their native pushed Kannada on an exactly opposite route, and speech habits as mere substandard variations of the excluded Kannada and other regional languages all-powerful standard Hindi [Khubchandani 1981]. from the realm of education, journalism, literature The distinctions between Standardized and all other academic discourses. Instead of the Kannada [i.e. Pure, high, powerful, elegant and common people’s language is being encouraged, the standard variety] and Dialects [i.e. Impure, low, Sanskritized Kannada is promoted. Sanskrit has powerless, non-standard, corrupted variety, become an ultimate necessity of all the functional substandard] is big split. As a result, caste/regional domains [education, literature, media, technology dialects are at the tip of extinction. It leads not and social science]. But still, neither Sanskrit nor the merely ironing-out the dialects alone; it also leads to lexicon of Sanskrit are protected by the common the cultural loss. people in their day to day interaction. Further, this Sanskritization: Representation versus became a hurdle in acquiring knowledge and Misrepresentation information. This part of paper is trying to highlight that II. how can Sanskrit be a major source for the problems Renowned linguist and cultural critic K. V. Narayana that have been occurred to the native languages of from Karnataka proposes an alternative model to India in general, and Kannada is in specific. This understand the relationship that exists between whole linguistic process is called as Sanskritization. Kannada and Sanskrit in contemporary situations. Sanskritization can be discussed in three broader The following tenets are the basic assumptions of perspectives; his modal: i. Structural linguistics Kannada and Sanskrit: A Readjustment ii. Sociolinguistics The relationship between Kannada and Sanskrit is iii. Diglossic Situation [it is a phenomenon very ancient. This paper does not intend to of both structural and sociolinguistics]. understand the process of this relation. However, Sanskrit language has highly influenced on this focuses the following aspects to explicate the Kannada structure from sound to sentence. Due to relation between Kannada and Sanskrit; this influence, Kannada has borrowed sounds, 1. Sanskrit has highly influenced Kannada lexical items, sandhi rules and their written [linguistic] sound system; as a result Kannada representation from Sanskrit, Ex. Aspirated sounds adopted many of its phonemes and their written representation. like; Ph, bh, kh, gh, chh, jh [곍, 듍, 壍, 惍, ಛ, 瓍] 2. Sanskrit did influence on Kannada lexicon in a vowels like R[ ] aI[ ] and[ ] etc. Therefore, ಋ ಐ ಔ great manner. Kannada has borrowed lexicon Sanskrit is very prevalent and predominant in the directly from Sanskrit and also through Prakrit. context of high variety of Kannada which leads to The so called standardized variety of Kannada linguistic discrimination among Kannada speakers. borrowed Sanskrit vocabulary probably more Due to the process of Sanskritization, the real usage than fifty percentages. of Kannada is restricted to a very limited domain. At 3. Some of the Word formational aspects of the same time, the Sanskritized Kannada is not Kannada were highly influenced by Sanskrit. associated with the common people. Consequently, many examples are available in The pro-Sanskritization lobby is preparing the context of morphophonemic structures and an artificial Kannada that is highly Sanskritized and compound formation of Kannada language. only literary would able to gain knowledge and 4. Due to the influence of Sanskrit on Kannada in information, restraining those who are illiterate some of the functional domains that created from accessing information and knowledge. This diglossic situation in Kannada. The prominence language [low variety] can be used for interaction, of Sanskrit lexicon is more in a higher stratum of and these languages are also the medium of social groups of Kannada and its standard knowledge dissemination and information sharing dialect, whereas, the prominence of native among common people. Pro-Sanskritization lobby 586 Dr. METI MALLIKARJUN
(RJELAL) Research Journal of English Language and Literature Vol.3.Issue 4.2015 A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal (Oct-Dec) http://www.rjelal.com
lexicon is more in the lower stratum of Kannada morphophonemic process Sanskrit rules are more groups. prevalent. The most prominent compound word in These structural influences of Sanskrit on Kannada i.e. u:To:pacha:ra in this particular Kannada are the basis to understand the issues of combination, u:Ta (Kannada) and upacha:ra standardization of Kannada. (Sanskrit) are incorporated. But Sandhi rule is While determining the standard variety of Sanskrit (i.e. guNasandhi). In this way, Kannada has Kannada, that form should be taken care to be developed its own structural designs to mix with remained in the modal of Sanskrit. Most probably, Sanskrit structure. According to these structures, all sounds of Sanskrit are considered as Kannada Sanskrit Kannadization (Samskrutada sounds. Those phonological variations and Kannadikarana) seems to be a strategy. That is why; diversities take place in Kannada are never common people cannot make out Sanskrit words legitimized in this particular determination of that they regularly use hundred of them in their standardization. In the sense, the only written routine communication; they simply consider them variety of Kannada is being considered as standard as Kannada words. At the same time, when Kannada form. Even there is a standardized spoken variety borrows words, sounds from other languages, [pronunciation], it must be legitimized by written especially from English language, people think that variety. However, sound structure and lexicon Kannada loses its purity. Thus, we need to structures of Sanskrit dictate the standardization of determine that Sanskrit linguistic aspects Kannada. More or less, in various discourses of internalized into Kannada which are very much Kannada, the use of standard variety is more transplant and visible. prominent. Thus, even in the present situation, Not only this, for many times, Sanskrit Sanskrit still continues its dictation and domination lexicon and word rules are the main resources for on Kannada in its various functional domains. many new morphological structures in Kannada. But It is possible to examine the relationship such new word-formation happens only in Kannada. between Kannada and Sanskrit from one more New words which are not practically used in angle. Aspirated sounds and fricative sounds like Ś/Ṣ Sanskrit, basing the same language, Kannada makes use of them. This is the best example for signifying [ಶ/ಷ] are less prevalent in oral performance, creative practice in the context of language contact. whereas, these sounds are more prominent and As expanding the domains of Kannada use, this prevailing without any gap in written Kannada. But unique relationship with Sanskrit facilitates Kannada in the process of neologism or in coinage of new to get new word formations enormously possible. words, Kannada violates the relation with Sanskrit in With this linguistic assistance of Sanskrit, many respects. This practice could be seen among Kannada formed new words, if not always, many grammarians of old Kannada. Such practices in the times these Sanskrit forms replace Kannada lexical process of new coinage are generally considered items that are constantly use in routine Arisamasa *i.e. compound but hybridized+. We don’t communication or they are also simultaneously used see any hesitation among speakers while using such along with these Sanskrit words. For example, one hybridized [Kannada and Sanskrit] forms which take can see that both anna and ku:Lu are in practice in place in Kannada. As well as, in these new Kannada. In this way, instead of the words or constructions of Kannada and Sanskrit, the rules of compounds have already been made available in word formation and morphophonemic [sandhi] Kannada, the words which we get from Sanskrit, processes are used together. Let’s see a sandhi rules between these two structures a unique relationship in word formation like Bh:ugaLLa [Land Thief]. There established between Kannada and Sanskrit. It is a mere Kannada and Sanskrit word alignment in means, Sanskrit words attain positive connotation the given formation. But morphophonemic rule of whereas Kannada words attain negative/derogative this alignment is Kannada (i.e. bhu:+kaLLa connotation. Words like anna and ku:Lu are the best =bhu:gaLLa, k˃g). This is how, while combining both instances for this reality. The word anna in Sanksrit Kannada and Sanskrit words into Kannada, in such
587 Dr. METI MALLIKARJUN
(RJELAL) Research Journal of English Language and Literature Vol.3.Issue 4.2015 A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal (Oct-Dec) http://www.rjelal.com
has a broader meaning a:ha:ra (i.e. food ) that But it is necessary to observe here one reduced to akki (i.e. rice) in Kannada. Similarly, the more aspect. While teaching Sanskrit as a classical word ku:Lu has a same connotation like a:ha:ra that language, one of the practicing written languages in most probably prepared with the same ingredients, a given situation is being used in the process of but now this word has got a negative and teaching this particular language. For example, even derogatory meaning. Nonetheless, if Sanskrit forms though students learn Sanskrit, but they write it in are given more privilege and legitimation, Kannada Kannada scripts. Even in the examinations, about forms remain very informal in the functional Sanskrit poetry and related such texts and questions domains. In such situation, if there are no on them are only being answered in Kannada. This differences as for as meaning are concerned, but modal is very predominant in Karnataka. It seems to there would be restrictions in their usages. be a strategy to stabilize this modal. Those who wish However, Sanskrit forms get a prominent place in to learn Sanskrit, they learn it through Kannada. writing practices, whereas, Kannada words remain Indirectly, they learn the secondary skills, reading in oral practices alone. Due to the intrusion of and writing of Kannada. If Kannada is their mother English lexicon, the consequences of diglossia are tongue, the primary skills, speaking and listening are getting more complicated. already known to them. In this way, the problem Cultural and Political status of Sanskrit and doesn’t arise that students will not be deprived by its support uncovered another face between the learning Kannada. relationship of Kannada and Sanskrit in language As such Kannada has made used the impact politics. Sanskrit is there in the list of languages of Sanskrit to strengthen itself. This is again which should be studied during schooling. It is regarded as a strategy. The structures of Sanskrit found, as mother tongue/ first language speakers of enter into Kannada; they never appear to be Kannada generally learn Sanskrit instead of Kannada alienated. It is necessary to have knowledge of during their schooling. This tendency seems to be Kannada scripts and writing system to read and confined to cities. And its impact is not that serious write Sanskrit. Therefore, it has become possible for at the surface structure. Still, there is an option Kannadigas to preserve the skills of Kannada to between Kannada and Sanskrit. There are no being with Sanskrit. By adopting this model into our tendencies that because of Sanskrit, except pedagogy very systematically, it is possible for us to Kannada, no other languages are sacrificed. develop a cordial relationship with Sanskrit. As a Alternative syllabuses like central and autonomous result, linguistic coexistence between Kannada and those are in practices have kept Kannada outside Sanskrit becomes quite possible. the education. Because Sanskrit is a classical Work Cited and References language, therefore provisions are made to learn Halliday M.A.K , (2004), The Language of Science in this language in school. This is how; there has been a the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, Vol- constant conflict between Kannada and Sanskrit. 05, continuum, London, P, 210 One can notice that many turning-points took place Hans N. Weiler, (2009), Whose Knowledge Matters? in the movement which related to Gokak Report Development and the Politics of After 1982. In this movement, the kind of conflict Knowledge. Theodor Hanf, Hans N. Weiler was being attempted between Kannada and Sanskrit und Helga Dickow (Hrsg.), Entwicklung als at one hand. On the other hand, one could see the Beruf. Baden-Baden: Nomos, P, 485-496 several moves which marginalized the issue thinking Hans N. Weiler, (2006), Challenging the Orthodoxies that this wouldn’t that important. This problem has of Knowledge: Epistemological, Structural not yet resolved in our schooling system, this still and Political Implications for Higher prevails. As a result, there is a possibility to not using Education. Guy Neave (ed.), Knowledge, the secondary skills like reading and writing for Power and Dissent: Critical Perspectives on Kannada children. This becomes the major Higher Education and Research in hindrance for the progress of Kannada.
588 Dr. METI MALLIKARJUN
(RJELAL) Research Journal of English Language and Literature Vol.3.Issue 4.2015 A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal (Oct-Dec) http://www.rjelal.com
Knowledge Society. Paris: UNESCO schools. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan, pp. Publishing, P, 61–87 262-283 Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic Pogacnik, Bogdan. (1986), eThe Culture of Small discourse: Class, codes & control, Volume Nations as a Communication Bridgei, Inter- IV. London: Routledge. Cross UNESSCO, No. 1, Paris Romaine, Suzanne. (1989). Pidgins, Creoles, Ramaswamy, Sumathi. (2007). Sanskrit for the immigrant and dying languagesi In Nancy C. Nation, Modern Asian Studies, 33 (2): 339- Dorian (ed.) Investigating obsolescence (:) 381 studies in language contraction and death, Singh, U.N. (1992). On Language Development and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. Planning: A Pluralistic Paradigm. Shimla: 369-384 Indian Institute of Advanced Study Sheldon Pollock, (1996). The Sanskrit Cosmopolis, Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. A.D. 300n1300: Transculturation, Cambridge:Harvard University Press Vernacularization, and the Question of Burdhan, A. B. (1973). The Unsolved Tribal Problem, Ideologyi. In J. E. M. Houben, (ed.) The New Delhi: Communist Party Publications Ideology and Status of Sanskrit in South and Chatterji, Suniti Kumar. (1943). Languages and the Southeast Asia. Leiden: Brill, pp. 197 - 247. linguistic problem, Oxford University Press Sheldon Pollock. (1998a). India in the Vernacular Gal, S. and Irvine, J. T. (1997). The boundaries of Millennium:Literary Culture and Polity languages and disciplines: how ideologies 1000n 1500. Daedalus, 127.3:1-34. construct a difference, Social Research, 62: Sheldon Pollock. (1998b). The Cosmopolitan 967 -1001 Vernaculari, Journal of Asian Studies, 57.1: Gal, Susan. (1979). Language Shift: Social 6-37. determinants of linguistic change in Sheldon Pollock. (2001). The Death of Sanskriti, bilingual Austria. New York: Academic Comparative Studies in Society and History, Press. 43(2): pp. 392-426 Garnham, Nicholas, (1993), Bourdieu, the cultural Ananthamurthy, U.R. (2009).Globalization, English arbitrary, and television, in C. Calhoun, E. and Othere Languages in Social Scientist, LiPumma and M. Postone (eds.) Bourdieu: Vol. 37 Critical Perspectives, Oxford: Quality Press, Kidwai, Ayesha. (2008). Managing multilingual Indiai, pp. 178-92 The Marxist, Volume XXIV, No. 2: April-June Lindstrom L. (1992). Context contests: debatable Anzaldua, G. (1987). Borderlands/La,frontera: The truth statement on Tanna (Vanuatu)’. In A new mestiza. San Francisco: Duranti, Goodwin (ed.), Rethinking Context: Spinsters/AuntLute. Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Four Essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas pp.101n24. Press. Dua, H.R. (1994). Hegemony of English. Mysore: Bhabha Homi. (1994). The Location of Culture. New Yashoda Publications. York: Routledge Fishman, J. A. (1974). Language planning and Ofelia Garcia, Skutnabb-Kangas and Maria Torres language planning research: The state of Guzman (ed.) 2009. Imaging Multilingual the art” In J. A. Fishman (ed.) Advances in Schools. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Language Planning. The Hague: Mouton, Mohanty, Ajit K. (2009). Multilingualism of the pp. 195-214 Unequals and Predicaments of Education in Khubchandani, L.M. (1972a). Contact Languages of India: Mother Tongue or Other Tongue? In Tribals, New Delhi: Indian Council of Social Ofelia Garcia, Skutnabb-Kangas and Maria Science Research Torres Guzman (ed) imaging multilingual
589 Dr. METI MALLIKARJUN
(RJELAL) Research Journal of English Language and Literature Vol.3.Issue 4.2015 A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal (Oct-Dec) http://www.rjelal.com
Khubchandani, L.M. (1981). Language, Education, Social Justice. Pune: Centre for Communication Studies. Narayana. K.V, (2010) Tondu Mevu – Vol VI & VII Baraha Publishing House, Bengaluru
590 Dr. METI MALLIKARJUN